Must NBA Coaches Be Former Players to Succeed?

Great players typically make bad coaches. Or so goes the adage. A guy like Michael Jordan isn't likely to be a good coach because he would have unreasonably high expectations of his players. He would be frustrated that they couldn't do the things he could do.

The logic makes sense, and very few all-time-great NBA players have had successful runs as coaches. Magic Johnson was a train wreck. Isiah Thomas was little better and, worse, wouldn't stop trying.

Larry Bird, as he is in nearly every way, is an outlier. 

Though he coached for just three seasons, he lead the Indiana Pacers to a 147-67 record, which culminated in an NBA Finals appearance in 2000. (They lost to the Los Angeles Lakers in six games as Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant won their first ring.) Bird even won the Coach of the Year award in his first season on the job. 

But this is atypical. 

The Brooklyn Nets, who hired Jason Kidd as head coach days after he retired as a player, are hoping to replicate such success. They're hoping that the Hall of Fame point guard can be more like Larry Legend and less like Thomas—as another Hall of Fame-quality point guard, Mark Jackson, has proven to be (so far) in Golden State.

But to do so, he will have to be another standout and buck a well-established trend. Because generally, the best coaches seem to not be stars, but guys who were middling professional players: Phil Jackson, Pat Riley, George Karl, Rick Adelman, Rick Carlisle.

If you add in a few guys who were higher-caliber players but still short of star status—Larry Brown, Don Nelson, Doc Rivers—this makes a list that includes several of the best coaches of all time and many of the most-respected to ever grace the sideline.

It's no wonder teams continue to seek coaches with playing experience. 

Men like Scott Brooks, Jacque Vaughn, Avery Johnson and Scott Skiles—heady players who used savvy, not skills, to stick around in the league as players—seem to be the walking, talking epitome of the NBA head coach model.

The Nets aren't the only team tying their future to a former NBA player with no coaching experience. The Phoenix Suns recently hired Jeff Hornacek, who—while no Jason Kidd—was a very good player.

Each may work out swimmingly. But the teams that had the most success this season were led by coaches with zero on-court NBA experience.

Gregg Popovich and Erik Spoelstra never played a game, yet are the only two men still coaching. Frank Vogel, too, never played in the league and led the Pacers to the Eastern Conference Finals. Lionel Hollins, who was an All-Star in 1978, was the only coach in the NBA's "final four" with any professional playing experience.

The argument for having experience has always been that coaches need that credibility. Players won't listen to someone who has never been in their shoes. 

Well, in 2013, it seems they will—at least enough to make the conference finals. And when you're talking about Popovich, you're probably talking about one of the five best coaches in league history. Going back even further, Red Auerbach never had a problem winning despite being a 5'10" stocky kid from Brooklyn who never laced 'em up professionally. It was never an issue for Chuck Daly either.

As always, success breeds imitation. 

So it is not surprising that the Sacramento Kings (who hired Mike Malone as head coach), Atlanta Hawks (Mike Budenholzer) and Charlotte Bobcats (Steve Clifford) have all followed suit. Their new coaches have never played in the NBA.

Will it work? Have they found the next Tom Thibodeau, who also never put on a jersey?

Has Brooklyn found its Larry Bird?

It's too early to say. But if they're anything like most coaches, they'll all probably finish around .500. 

And then get fired. 

Because that's the one thing almost all coaches have in common: Everybody gets fired.

Ultimately, there is no cut-and-dried rule. Good players can make good coaches, bad players can make good coaches, and non-players can make good coaches. Once in a while, a great player even becomes a good coach.

It's impossible to make a blanket statement. There are always exceptions, always those who don't fit the mold.

Which should be common sense. Success is more about basketball knowledge, interpersonal skills, managerial talent and leadership. Those traits don't belong to any one group.

The only rule is that there are no rules. Teams should be evaluating the person, not how they fit into an established stereotype.

In that sense, recent hirings are a step in the right direction. Kidd's path to the sidelines is near-unprecedented. And without the recent success of other coaches with no playing experience, Malone, Budenholzer and Clifford probably wouldn't have jobs.

All of this shows that teams are starting to get it. They're starting to think for themselves and hire who they think is the best man for the job, not simply the person who looks the part.